That makes sense, it takes a bit of prep to move to a different country. I hope you do well while you are here. Michigan State is a good university (if a bit cold in the winter, pack warm clothes).

Discrimination exists everywhere. Unfortunately, 100% of human beings alive today are imperfect, and sometimes that imperfection expresses itself as discrimination. If it is institutionalized or government supported, then the point of view that cries "oppression" is very valid. If it is sporadic or if it is private, then basically, we just have to deal with it. There will always be intolerant people (which is bad), and no amount of legislation will change that.

Members of a minority group have a choice. They can do what they can to integrate into society, to give society no opportunity to discriminate, or they can rebel against the system.

Many people of Asian descent live in the United States. They are hired at very high levels and are well respected in most communities. Why? Because they adapt to our society and learn to speak, read and write English. They weren't always treated well, in fact many Asians were effectively slaves when they were brought here from China in the 1800s (shame on those who allowed that to happen), but they've overcome that early start and have integrated into society in a way that preserves their heritage and still allows them to succeed.

People of Hispanic descent have lived in the United States a longer period of time, and came here as free people, and yet have chosen not to integrate as well into society (especially in the Southwest where they have large populations). As such, they (generally speaking) don't have careers that are as good as the Asians, and aren't as well accepted into society. Part of that is simply because they (again generally speaking) don't learn English and don't learn to adapt to the United States society.

People of other cultures have integrated into U.S. society with varying degrees of success, but it is always the ones who have the lowest level of integration who are crying "racism" and "oppression".

Now of course, there are exceptions to all of these groups. The point is that those who try to meet the majority in the middle will do well (generally speaking). Those that don't simply won't because there are always others who will.

I feel bad for the minorities in France. I believe that the largest failing was by Jacques Chirac who told them not to bother integrating into society. He told them that they would be accepted under his idea of diversity. Unfortunately, he expected too much of his people. His ideology was based on an ideal world, not a real world, and as such, it failed. Had he instead said something like "welcome to France, dress and act like Frenchmen at work, but retain your heritage at home..." these immigrants would be more likely to have succeeded. The next to blame would be the immigrants themselves, who when faced with discrimination, didn't take the necessary steps to integrate to avoid discrimination (very difficult, but when one is an immigrant, it is pretty obvious that this is necessary). The French people simply wanted to be French people. They didn't want their society to change (and still don't). It isn't reasonable that it should for immigrants, so although they perpetrated the discrimination, they aren't really that much to blame for it (at least no more than any other society who has to deal with immigrants from a different culture, although they do carry blame for their intolerance).

-- Jeff

ps Zteccc was a company that I used to own (Z-Tec Computer Consulting). I started using it for all email addresses and as an online handle many years ago. It replaced my prior "handle" of HS (which many sites rejected as too short) or Stranger (which was too common).

pps Edited for typos.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I used to live and work in France, and you actually hit the nail on the head 100%.

(God I haven't been here in ages...)

As I wrote to Skandalous, give me some hard cases of the oppression that you've seen. Make the case that it is the French people's fault rather than the immigrants not taking the steps to integrate into French society. I've seen both views reported, but I still lay the blame at the feet of Chirac and his idealistic, yet unrealistic, policies.

Let's say that I decided to immigrate to Qatar with my wife and children. After moving there, we decide to continue dressing as I do in the United States. We keep speaking English. We wear religious symbols and open a Christian Church out of our home which we publicize. We ignore the culture and values of the community we live in, or we live in an area that is largely Americans. Will I be accepted into society in Qatar if I do those things? Will I have the advantages of a native of Qatar? Will my children? Will we instead be second class citizens? I submit that we would. It would be unrealistic to expect anything else.

What, instead, if we dress in public as the citizens of Qatar do? What if we learn the language? What if we practice our faith, but keep it to ourselves (until their society has accepted us)? What if I integrate with society? Won't I have a much better chance of escaping the status of "second class citizen"?

If I show my willingness to integrate and learn their languages and customs, the only reason they could discriminate would be skin color, which would be obviously racism. If, on the other hand, I remain an American in all but location, then I could be excluded for many other good business reasons.

One side alone can rarely be blamed for any conflict.

Oh, and it's been a while since I've seen your posts. Welcome back.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

What are the "the necessary steps to live together?" (I'm not picking on you)
I agree w/ *~$kAnDaLouZ~* here as covering your face on an ID card would defeat it's purpose, though what someone wears has nothing to do w/ thier ability to perform in the workplace. "Businesslike" has nothing to do with clothing. The culture(s) implimenting these "businesslike" policies in the workplace are geared toward assimilation (a.k.a. racial discrimination) of anything outside the "societal norm." "Race is social construct. In other words, scientists have discovered that only 2% our genes make-up the visible differences like skin color."

yeah, no ones perfect. But many people overtly don't want to be "perfect" or fair, or unbiased, or equal, or civil, or anything of the "ideal" humane nature. Discrimination based on dress is intentionally malicious. It's ethnocentric and should be exposed as such.

I don't have any well-rounded answers so I'm gonna just point the blame on the frustration of meaninglessness & alienation in peoples lives that have led to these riots(and prolly the majority of most "social unrest.")

__________________
<---Click on it

I've enumerated some. If people want to live in a society that isn't their "native" one, then they need to learn the language, adapt the culture and customs and do things that others in the society do. As I wrote above, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." One cannot expect to be accepted into society if one doesn't meet societal norms. Nobody is supposed to abandon their heritage, but that doesn't mean that they cannot adapt.

Actually, I'm the one who brought up the ID card issue, not Skandalouz.
What someone wears definitely has to do with their ability to perform in a workplace. Take, for instance, the banking industry. If a person dresses conservatively in a bank (in the United States, this means at least slacks, shirt and tie for gentlemen and the same or a business dress for ladies), then they portray to the customer the image of stability which is necessary for the customer's perception of safety of their money. If a person dresses in an unconventional manner in that same position, the result is that a customer is less likely to feel comfortable depositing their funds in that bank. This is true with most industries that have customer interaction. The clothing that one wears directly impacts the customer's view of that business.
From a business standpoint, therefore, it is reasonable to reject any applicant who doesn't adapt to the societal norms of dress for a given position. If the position requires casual clothing, someone dressed in semi-formal wear might be rejected because it appears that the "overdressed" person doesn't understand the position. Similarly, if the position requires semi-formal clothing, an aplicant in neat, but casual clothing may be rejected for the same reason. It may not be "fair" that this happens, but it does happen and for good business reasons. In my experience in hiring interviewees, I have seen people in many styles of dress and appearance. Depending on the job that I was hiring for, I sometimes discarded certain applicants out of hand based solely on appearance. The proper appearance gives the employer the idea that the applicant at least understands something about the job and can take it seriously.
Businesslike definitely has to do with clothing as well as attitude. A person with a perfect attitude may still not be businesslike if that person dresses in ripped jeans and a T-shirt to an interview. Similarly, ethnic traditional clothing may be inappropriate for a particular job and an applicant dressed that way is likely to be rejected for that reason.
Yes, this does indeed mean assimilation at least in one's professional life. Assimilation into society is indeed discrimination, but it isn't (necessarily) racism. Let me state that many times discrimination is perfectly acceptable. For example, I as an employer, might give a benefit to one employee that I don't to another. That is discrimination. The reason that it may be acceptable is that the particular employee may be the best employee that I have, and it may be a reward for good work. Similarly, it is acceptable to discriminate against a poor employee by refusing to extend certain benefits (e.g. permission to leave early).
You are indeed correct that what we refer to as "race" is simply a variation within the human species and those who discriminate because of it are really being foolish since there is really no difference. Nonetheless, stating this obvious fact doesn't change the world. Until people choose to ignore skin color, then we have to deal with it. The best way to deal with it (in my opinion) is to show those who discriminate that those of different skin color are in fact capable of doing the same work and living in the same society. To do so, members of the minority must remove as many "differences" as possible (in their professional/public life) so that the only difference that can be perceived is skin tone. That would leave the racists without any legitimate excuse other than racism if they discriminate. Again, I'm not sayin that the minority must abandon his faith or culture, simply that in one's public/professional life, that one should assimilate in appearance. What someone does at home doesn't matter to an employer unless the employee brings it to the workplace.
What we see instead is minorities trying to force their differences down the collective throats of the majority with the result that the majority can come up with many legitimate reasons to reject the minority because of those differences. Moreover, such an approach is often viewed as hostile by the majority and they will likely react with hostility in return which leads to a worse situation for the minority, not a better one.
The next step, after a minority group has become integrated into society may be to work from within to gain acceptance of their own cultures in the greater society. This is what has happened with many minority groups in the United States. There are still many others where this has not occurred, but in those cases, we don't find the integration.

That's true. Ideals are ideals because they suggest the best possible outcome. A realist knows that there are people who won't follow the ideal. That isn't to say that these people aren't generally decent people, but they are flawed, just as the rest of us. Making policy based on an ideal (as Chirac did in France, forced diversity acceptance) is simply unrealistic (and, predictably, it didn't work). Better to make a policy that accepts the flaws and still attempts to provide an equal footing (assimilation into the current society).
Discrimination based on dress isn't intentionally malicious. It is simply a business decision. Business is amoral. It doesn't care about social graces or right and wrong. It cares about profit and loss. If a business person feels that certain dress is incompatible with profit, they can choose to prohibit it or reject an applicant for it and that would be a legitimate decision based on business needs. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality. We all live in this reality, and whether we like it or not, denying that it exists leads to unrest and to situations like the one that France is facing.
Societal norms (including dress) is indeed ethnocentric. That isn't the same as racist. French society is what it is. Perhaps one might disagree with it, but if one wants to live in France, it is unreasonable to expect French society to change, it is more reasonable for that one to change to adapt to the society.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I knew you brought up the ID card issue, I was just agreeing w/ Skandalouz in that the examples seemed incomparable.

Clothing is superficial. Nothing but woven fiber of whatever material. They contain no inherent meaning. To assume that a particular style of clothing conveys financial or moral stability is an illusion (if not out-right B.S.)

If that customer is less likely to feel comfortable depositing their funds in that bank due to an employee's apperance then that is blatant lookism (which isn't much different than racism) due to a fostered notion that what one wears is direct reflection of thier financial status in society and thus relative trustworthiness. Isn't ones resume or credentials merit enough of a job? Why must employeers cater the predjudices of the consumer? Don't they see that in doing so they are perpetuating the predjudices themselves and are then solely responsible for thier continuance?

On the otherhand people have attached personal and/or religious meaning to their attire and is exactly this reason that certain societies wish to remove any such sentimentality from the workplace. It's literally dehumanizing to be "businesslike." And this is apperently the goal of civilization.

Amorality is immoral, same w/ apathy. Discrimination based upon appearance, esp. in the workplace is unethical. Why would any "moral" person EVER willingly join a business that openly doesn't care about right or wrong?! Why would any ethically inclined person associate themselves w/ such an unabashed amoral institution? If the reality of business is admittedly predjudiced then shouldn't the focus here be upon changing it for the better or do you feel that, atleast, predjudice w/in business places of conduct is unchangable?

I get the feeling that the expression "When in rome, do as the romans do" carries the connotation of "when in rome, do as the romans do... or else they'll kill you." Or is it just me?

__________________
<---Click on it

Ok, I don’t want to write a multipage essay and too lazy to quote every conflicting comment but I'll say this. While I read the many comments from ztecc, I found myself just shaking my head because it just seemed like much of it was coming from someone who just didn't “get it.” There were a lot of misconceptions and comparisons that were just not fitting. Maybe it's because of the US press who mostly show what they want and don't necessarily shoot for accuracy. The vice versa is true, believe me. It's sometimes funny to read about world events in US and French papers since the take is so different, especially during those UN hearings pre-Iraq invasion. While Skandalouz wrote just a fraction of what ztecc wrote in terms of content, he was spot on.

My comments in no particular order:
These kids causing the riots can speak french just fine (but with a suburban accent). These kids are mostly arabs but come from northern africa, not the middle east (ztecc keeps mentioning middle east but I'm sure you know you don't need to be from the middle east to be arab).

Although the mention of exterior dress would seem irrelevant, it was actually a big issue in France a few years back after 9/11. Some muslim girls wanted to accentuate their devotion to islam by wearing head scarves to school, a big no no in France as religious items are probihited in schools, even crosses. So ztecc’s point about inflexibility was correct there, even though he probably didn't know about this (I think he would've mentioned such a strong supporting point).

Consider that while blacks and other minorities in the US have had a long time to adjust (and yet have problems), these immigrants came post World War II. Think about the employment difficulties faced by the Irish and Italians when they came through Ellis Island because of discrimination (which ztecc admits exists in France). Is it so hard to believe that the same is going on in France?

Contempt breeds contempt, and the French are now in a cycle where the arabs are pissed because they have nothing and act it out, while the others are now pissed off at them for their behavior. That’s why Le Pen (fascist from Front Nationale party) was able to make it to the final presidential election a few years back. Even though I’m kind of defending them, I hated these punk kids while I was there. They hassle you for money, cigs, or outright try to rob you. I’ve had many incidents with them, but luckily I didn’t lose anything while some friends did. I did have my car burglarized, but I can’t know who did it. Never had problem with the punk kids in the US who keep more to themselves. I had a friend who lived in an apartment complex where there was often a burnt car in the parking lot (it’s not new). Anyway, the non-immigrant French are pissed too now. Chirac is a wuss, while Sarkozy (I hate this fucker) is a hardass when it comes to these issues and it should help him in the next election.

So you want a "hard case" that they're being discriminated against? Ztecc gave it himself. Isn't the fact that the employment rate is so much higher for them evidence enough? A 30% difference can't just be attributed to laziness IMO. Do you really think that many people would rather sit on their asses rather than get jobs to better themselves? Try to find out the percentage of managers in France that are of arab origin. You won't find any encouraging numbers there. If a hiring manager receives two resumes, one from a person with a very "French" name, and one from an arab who might be slightly better qualified, guess who'll get the job?

In my years in France, the only person who echoed ztecc's comments was this girl who was probably a staunch supporter of the Front Nationale, the extreme right wing political group. We (me being the only foreigner there) all rolled our eyes as she conveyed her ideas to us, which were pretty much the same things coming from ztecc. These immigrants obviously need to integrate better, but the question is whether that's possible given the environment and circumstances. ztecc talks about how he's a minority and yet he has done well for himself. That's great, but again, he just doesn't understand that they don't necessarily have the same merit based system in France. I think the fact that a person, regardless of race or economic class, can work hard and do well for themselves is the great thing about the US. In France (and a lot of Europe for that matter), it's more archaic than that. To summarize it briefly - while the country provides free education to everyone, only the richer kids can afford to get into the better colleges and school names count a lot more than they do here in the US. In some African nations, if you’re from a rich family, you’re set for life (better jobs) even if you’re a fool, while a smart kid from a poor family will probably end up collecting junk for a living. I consider France to be between the US and that kind of African country, although hopefully closer to the US. (There’s a large thread somewhere here where we compared educational systems and I defended the US system.)

Agreed.
Not to be one to focus on the smaller issues, but this isn't.
The fact that france DID NOT allow muslim girls to wear the head scarf in schools, is one big mistake. Regardless of their policy.
The difference between a muslim girl wearing a head scarf, and (for example) a christian wearing a cross necklace. Is that the latter is optional.
The head scarf in Islam is an OBLIGATION for women, not a choice.
So basically, the French government was telling those muslim girls to disregard an important part of their religion, for the sake of some policy.
A big no-no, IMHO.

__________________

OMG dude...I love you.

__________________

Some people are like Slinkies.. They're not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Am I the only one here who finds terms like "politics", "economy", "foreign policy", "Front Nationale party", "government", etc. nauseating?? What's wrong with me, or more importantly, what's wrong with you people?

__________________
<---Click on it